Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Explore the Reasoning Capability of LLMs in the Chess Testbed

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2411.06655 v2 pith:EJQNQRRH submitted 2024-11-11 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords chessmodelslanguagereasoningcapabilitylargeannotatedbetter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Reasoning is a central capability of human intelligence. In recent years, with the advent of large-scale datasets, pretrained large language models have emerged with new capabilities, including reasoning. However, these models still struggle with long-term, complex reasoning tasks, such as playing chess. Based on the observation that expert chess players employ a dual approach combining long-term strategic play with short-term tactical play along with language explanation, we propose improving the reasoning capability of large language models in chess by integrating annotated strategy and tactic. Specifically, we collect a dataset named MATE, which consists of 1 million chess positions with candidate moves annotated by chess experts for strategy and tactics. We finetune the LLaMA-3-8B model and compare it against state-of-the-art commercial language models in the task of selecting better chess moves. Our experiments show that our models perform better than GPT, Claude, and Gemini models. We find that language explanations can enhance the reasoning capability of large language models.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Can Large Language Models Develop Strategic Reasoning? Post-training Insights from Learning Chess

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Training LLMs with dense chess rewards improves puzzle accuracy but plateaus around 25-30%, far below expert level, because the base models lack internal chess knowledge.

  2. SwS: Self-aware Weakness-driven Problem Synthesis in Reinforcement Learning for LLM Reasoning

    cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    SwS uses failures during RL training to synthesize targeted math problems, improving reasoning accuracy on eight benchmarks.

Pith tools